Complicity in Silence

....Yes I agree....
[quote]
Every smirking soldier and every dieing Iraqi is asking us to make a choice between silence and a stand.
[/quote]


........What is more appaling....is the the utter disregard for such a sensitive issue ...on this forum...

syed Ali Yours is the First and Only topic related to this issue.....So Far....

On that happy (for you) thought of me going to outer space where there is no chowk connection, I end this (ha! ha!) discussion.
(hope previous sentence was not too undignified).

Tahmed32 # 110 - The idea of sending you into outer space is far more appealing to me than the mere thought of your joining police in Pakistan. Hopefully ``dignity`` is not one of traits among Martians - or you may find yourself ``out of place`` there too!

The last thing we need is Pakistani police getting its paycheck from US Defense Department and getting its training from Abu Gharaib prison guards.

malik #109 I think my example of the Pakistan Police is quite relevant and you are merely trying to split hairs. And in doing so, you simply lead yourself to make the absurd statement that the choice is between being ``part of the war machine or oppose the war machine``. To give another example to make the absurdity clear, I also support the idea of space exploration, and so by your logic I should be applying to NASA as well as the US Army. (Although, I am sure you would like the idea of my being sent to the Oort Cloud or some other place far away and so not be able to raise my hand and say ``But your highness...`` every time you make an absurd statement).

tahmed32 # 108 - You wrote ``I support law and order in Pakistan too - that does not mean I join the Pakistan Police and start patrolling the streets of karachi. ``

There is a HUGE difference between the eternal law and order chaos in Pakistan and the event which occured on March 19, 2003. That event had a starting point. That event did not exist on March 18th, 2003. There was a choice to be made in regards to the event. The choice was: should one be a part of the war machine or oppose the war machine. Pseudo-intellectuals like you chose the first.

And of course when all else falls apart, there is that automatic fall back position ``isn`t world better off without Saddam?`` !! :)

By the way, Thomas Friedman has made a complete about turn on war. Now he opposes it !!! After thousands of deaths, at least he sees the light. You will too - but only after all the `masters` have seen the light.

malik #99 Unlike you who has chosen to simply ignore some simple points I made on the basis of what you yourself wrote, I am not afraid to respond to any questions on anything I have written. That phrase in your question that I mentioned was gibberish, but since you have chosen not to clarify it, I will respond to the part of the sentence that is at least understandable.

So, question was: ``When are you going to Iraq to help out the US who you contributed in sending to that hellish war?``, and I will break it up into the gibberish and the non-gibberish parts.

non-gibberish part of your question: ``When are you going to Iraq to help out the US....?``
Response: The non-gibberish part of your question is (with all due respect), stupid: I support law and order in Pakistan too - that does not mean I join the Pakistan Police and start patrolling the streets of karachi.

Before the war, I provided the reasons why I supported it. I re-iterated those reasons below and you had no response. You can challenge something I have written if you find it factually wrong. You cant ask me when I am going to participate in something I support.

The rest of your post is your standard proclamations of victory. A bit like General Niazi driving around rawalpindi with his eastern command flag on his staff car after being released from Indian jail, until someone reminded him the eastern command no longer existed.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

malik #104 And one more thing - I said you were a hypocrite based on something you wrote where this hypocrisy stood out in black and white, and which I cut and paste. I challenge you to do the same to back your calling me a hypocrite - and failing that to accept the fact that you are merely tossing back my words at me without anything to back them up.

#98 Diablo
``And BTW...Jang....look up what happened in the fall of 2002....nuns were raped and churches were torched in Madras.....compliments of Shiv sena.``

Tells us how much ou know. The Shiv Sena guys are morelik ely to get roughed up in Chennai than any Christians.

tahmed32 # 102 - You write ``Your question is gibberish. Get it right first if you want me to understand what your question is. ``

I have asked you the same question 5 different ways, yet you giggle childishly and refuse to take it on like a man. You are a cornered and discredited war monger and a hypocrite and I, or this board, do not expect to hear anything rational from you in this regard.

#98

{{I am not here to defend the Ummah...read my previous posts}}

Whatever … what matters to me is that your default assumptions show your total ignorance of India – just like some of the other sermonizers who infest Chowk.

{{I am just disgusted by arjun_m.....critique is good but he sounds fanatical}}

Arjun’s posts are generally solidly based in fact – he typically has a link or two to support his claims. And he is always cogent and to the point.

Try dealing with the content of the post, not the personality behind it. Either its arguments are sound and its factual claims are well-founded – in which case you need to address the reality they depict; or the arguments and factual claims are unsound, in which case you ought to be able to laugh them off. I suspect that what upsets you –just as it upsets so many of the Pakistanis on Chowk - is precisely that arjun’s posts are well-founded, hit you repeatedly in your most vulnerable spots, force you to confront unpleasant realities you’d rather conceal.

{{is seething with hate against Muslims.......}}

Now you are really running true to a familiar Chowk type – the fellow who whines or rages about ‘hate speech’ or ‘hatemongering’ when he runs out of arguments to counter his adversaries. For some reason this seems to be a particularly common trait among Pakistanis – I strongly suspect it has its roots in the stupid notion of ‘blasphemy’.

{{NO RACE IS PURE AND NO RACE IS ABOVE ANY OTHER...NOT MUSLIM NOT HINDU!}}

When did ‘Muslim’ and ‘Hindu’ become ‘races’?

{{in the fall of 2002....nuns were raped and churches were torched in Madras.....compliments of Shiv sena.}}

Churches burnt in Madras? – by Shiv Sena? The Shiv-Sena’s stronghold is in Maharashtra, on the other side of the peninsula - 500 miles away. The Shiv Sena started its carrier as thuggish local ‘patriots’ in Bombay, harassing South Indians – so-called ‘Madrasis’ who were ‘stealing’ jobs from local boys. They don’t have much of a national presence. Since when have they had any muscle in Tamil Nadu, of all places?

At least try to learn the barest facts about India before you mouth off.

diablo....i have to agree with you.I`m an indian but am not too proud of all my fellow indians.Some indians are as racist and bigoted as everyone else is.I live in the US and can understand the american point of view too.That`s how it is and that`s how it will always be.I`ve never been to gujarat and i`ve always had the impression of my gujarati brothers as a money minded, scroungy, racist lot but the recent elections kinda disproved that image to an extent in my eyes.The silent majority ,rich or poor i can`t say, apparently lent a blow to that scum bag Modi and his ilk and defeated the BJP in a state that they thought they had in their bag.I feel bad for Vajpayee though.But he did associate with Modi, didn`t he???.Well, the key to south asia`s demise has been ``divide and rule``.The indian diaspora is trying to overcome that and thrive.Witness italian born sonia gandhi`s rise to power.The indians have demonstrated that they can rise to the occasion and unite under anyone as long as they are committed to india regardless of where they`re from either in india or overseas, what their faith is or their caste.Once again the simple indian voter has brought the powerful , the elite and the intellectual to their knees.The muslim world has to adopt some of this if they want to live in peace and harmony with the rest of the world.Empty bombast and rhetoric after a carnage will not do.The killing of Nick Berg is unjustified regardless of the reason.Two wrongs do not make a right.

malik #92 you write ``When are you going to Iraq to help out the US who you contributed in sending to that hellish war? ``

Your question is gibberish. Get it right first if you want me to understand what your question is.

(To help you understand why it is gibberish, look at this phrase in the sentence ``...the US who you contributed in sending ...``. What the hell am I supposed to make of this?)

Diablo #98,

``And BTW...Jang....look up what happened in the fall of 2002....nuns were raped and churches were torched in Madras.....compliments of Shiv sena.``

Would you mind providing a reference for that ? The Shiv Sena doesn`t have
much of a presence in Madras, if I remember right. I tried googling it, and all
I found was this -

``December 6, 2002 - More than 9,500 Dalits wishing to convert to Christianity and be baptized were turned back by police in Chennai. Several people were beaten and 11 people who helped organize the mass conversion ceremony were arrested in connection with Tamil Nadu`s new law against ``forcible`` conversions. Chairs set up for the event were also destroyed and various human rights violations were reported (ANS/AICC).``

Very good, Urstruly (#91) …

Your talk about moral standards is hypocritical. Pray tell us … how do you reconcile your high moral ideals … with condemning to death a Hindu for preaching his faith … with killing a person for blasphemy … with imprisoning an Ahmadi for saying “as’salam alaikom”. You justify your violent tendencies in the name of religion … and pretend that that’s good enough.

Conversely … you’d be happy to have a person’s head cut off … if he decided to leave Islam.

What is the difference between you and the animals you so eagerly condemn?

hahahahahahaha

Go ahead and dodge the question...again not a peep out of your mouth against your own.

Oh and by the way...if you think calling me a Camel jockey ticks me off...well it doesn`t....us camel jockeys had you kneeling for 700 years......God knows how you would classify yourself now.....

All Others....

I am not here to defend the Ummah...read my previous posts and usually argue against all those who do end up shamefully defending the double standards of the Ummah....

I am just disgusted by arjun_m.....critique is good but he sounds fanatical and is seething with hate against Muslims.......NO RACE IS PURE AND NO RACE IS ABOVE ANY OTHER...NOT MUSLIM NOT HINDU!

There is more to life then hating others blindly....

And BTW...Jang....look up what happened in the fall of 2002....nuns were raped and churches were torched in Madras.....compliments of Shiv sena.

Diablo #89

It’s always a scream to see the assumptions pompous sermonizers from the ummah make about others. I’ve lost count of the number of times these clowns presume that their adversaries are Hindus before starting off on their inane all-religions-are-equal all-have-bad-eggs homilies.

It might be a good idea to see how many Christians you can find from India who would prefer to be subjects of one of the countries that make up the Muslim ummah, rather than Indian citizens. Muslims from Pakistan typically extrapolate the shabby treatment that their country inflicts on people who belong to religious minorities, onto the treatment that people from the corresponding minorities receive in India, and are generally resentful or incredulous on being told that their projections are unfounded.

And since you addressed your post to arjun in a rather personal fashion – the man seems to be a happy atheist, from a religiously mixed background. So much for your assumptions.

#89 by Diablo

your post is pure rhetoric, no facts. arjun is not hindu, shivesena has not raped nuns among other falsehoods. allow me to generalize..why are ummah members so emotional and full of rhetoric? they remind me of marxist-leninist talking about the proles and bourgoise (sp?) etc.

Diablo #89 Your post is so good, I wish I had written it.

PS: Laiken is bhai kay sar pay jooN nahiN reengay gi. ;-)

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Tahemed32 - Demonstrate for us how to answer a question without a ``context``. Demonstrate for us by answering this question:

When are you going to Iraq to help out the US who you contributed in sending to that hellish war?

Talk is cheap. So you might as well keep it to yourself if you can`t answer the above question.

HP

What you wrote, is exactly the point I was trying to make. The Geneva Convention was sidelined first by the Americans themselves when Rumsfeld stated that it did not apply to the the people US incarcerates. Do you remember when in initial days of Iraq war Western televisions through their ``bedded`` jouranlists regulalrly showed naked Iraqi POWs paraded through the streets and when one day Al-Jazeera showed US POWs, Bush suddenly remembered that there was something like GC that prohibits the display of POWs. They break the laws when it suits them and they make others follow the laws when it suites them. But too bad what goes around comes around.

That is why we need to judge the whole situation by moral standards of human beings without taking sides and it must not just stop at that but the culprit must be scorned and shown due disgust.

sadna #86 I dont think there is anything in my post that gives that impression.

Malik #85 you say ``When did I write this? Are you getting delusional?``

You wrote this in your post #12. I am not getting delusional.

In that post, you had responded to my question ``so do you consider this beheading to be justified? `` by writing as follows:

``NO. Absolutely not. It is a travesty and a horrible act. Having said this, lets look at the CONTEXT of this brutal killing. Why was this person in Iraq? Was he there at the invitation of Iraqi people or was he there at the behest of occupation army? Let me further elaborate with an example: ``...

and you go on in the rest of your post to ``explain`` this beheading. That is why I said you condoned this beheading.

The above write-up indicates that you are not only condoning this beheading, you are also being hypocritical about it: that is, you start by saying ``NO. Absolutely not``, and spend the rest of your post contradicting what you said (as I pointed out earlier, and a point that you did simply ignored).

As for calling me ``delusional`` you are merely tossing back the word I used in your case when I challenged you to do the same. I dont just toss words around - if I say you are delusional, I say it because you are claiming I said something that I never did.

arjun_m,

Are you now trying to plaster yourself off as an American taxpayer now?

Dude, take a step back and relax, it ain`t your tax money that is being spent...its probably the immigration anal probe fees you paid to the Americans when you programmed your way to America.....

On that note arjun_m.....you are truly a Hindu on steriods.....you bitch about the Ummah alone, which is fine as long as you are objective.....but with you I don`t see a peep against your own kind....what about your loonies?

Bal Thakray and Shiv Sena have committed the same kinds of atrocities against Christians and Muslims in India? Do you back Shiv Sena when goes around raping nuns?

arjun_m.......there are good and bad people in every race.....bitch about our bad BUT don`t don`t forget that you have some rotten apples in your Hindu basket too.......Don`t forget that your religion segregates HUMANS in categories including ``untouchables``.....so chill out man....you are not God`s gift to the world...you too are racist and biased.

The US is in Iraq not to liberate anyone BUT for its own interests...and as far as this war is concerned well it just so happens that it was also in the interest of the people of Iraq that Saddam be removed. The tax money you are lamenting (are you a Banya?......) was spent because the government of the US willed so....if you didn`t like it then go and lobby against it.....

Don`t just go crying to your Parvati about it!

#85 by Urstruly

“beheading of American prisoner do not fall into the catagory of a legal issue and hence justified.”

I think this was a despicable line by you. You make a serious error , when you attempt to reduce the scope of morality to just legality.

I agree with you that most of the contractors in Iraq are military, CIA, and Intelligence personals in civilian garbs. I also agree with you that they are a legitimate target for the resistance in Iraq. Also true that four contractor hanged in Fallujah were most likely CIA or Sp.ops. people. They were killed in a mob frenzy. Their hanging was not justifiable but nobody can teach a frenzied mob Geneva convention. The beheading of Berg was a deliberate act and that should be condemned vigorously.

The Iraqi resistance has a right to fight back and nobody can deny that right to them. But brutalizing the prisoners is not a right for either side. Beheading is a brutal act. Iraqi resistance has rights to arrest and incarcerate Americans in Iraq, but the Iraqi resistance does not have the right to behead american prisoners.

Since the US is circumventing the Geneva Convention, the Iraqi resistance is not bound by it too. Still, the moral issue is way above Geneva convention or any other law.

tahmed32 #81
You seem to be under the impression that Saudi govt. is the only Arab regime in the ME. For your information, it is not. I leave it to fate or the heavens above to inform you which are other Arab regimes which are dictatorial, oppressive and intolerant.

Talking about the legality of murders in Iraq one must keep in mind that the Geneva Convention does not cover mercenaries and soldiers of fortune which America calls ``civilian contractors``. In other words these civilian contractors are a fair game for anyone as far as legality is concerned. Donald Rumsfeld used the same argument to brutalize Afgahan freedom fighters, prisoners of Guantanamo Bay and later Iraqi insurgents. If we take Rumsfelds line of logic then the killing of four contractors in faluja and dismemberment of their bodies as well as the recent beheading of American prisoner do not fall into the catagory of a legal issue and hence justified.

As you can see that this line of logic i.e. legality of the issue leads us to nothing but to a greater human misery. But the whole issue of Iraq do fall into legal category as well. One party is of course guilty - the party that has broken all internationl laws, violated UN charter, and murdered thousands of innocent human beings based on absolute lies. Not only that, it has lowered itself to use all the dirty tricks that it could, torturing and humiliating prisoners, gang rape of women and children in front of their men with in their own houses while raiding, and what not just to break the will of a people. That party is to be blamed who has committed these war crimes and crimes against humanity.

tahmed32 # 83: You wrote ``the moral poverty that led you to condone this brutal beheading.``

When did I write this? Are you getting delusional?

Tahmed32 - when you promoted this war, you exhibited your hate towards the life of thousands of innocent people who would be killed. By promoting this illegal and unncessary war, you also exhibited your contempt towards the lives of 20/21 year old american soldiers who ultimately paid the price. So stop lecturing us about the sanctity of life. We know how to respect life - ALL life, be it an american or an arab.

Now that this war whose virtues you so passionately promoted has gone wrong, why don`t you go to Iraq and help US in this mess instead of typing away from the confines of peaceful and lush green Virginia?

Hypocricy should be felony.

malik #82 you write ``When you bash ALL muslims for killing an american,``

Where did I write this? Are you getting delusional? Do you think I am so stupid as to condemn an entire community for the crimes of a few? On the contrary, I have written thousands of posts on chowk, and have consistently stood up to those who condemn entire communities (muslim or hindu). This does not win me friends on chowk, and I dont care. I am not running for elections. That is why I stick to the principle that murder is murder, no ifs and buts.

Instead of now trying to find new charges against me, you would be better off just reflecting a bit on your own serious weaknesses:

a. this need for recognition in the west by being a ``revolutionary``, and
b. the moral poverty that led you to condone this brutal beheading.

You wont like me saying this, and no doubt will come back with some more cleverness, but one day you may understand what I am trying to tell you.

sadna #76 Agreed that the saudi government is an obscurantist monarchy. My point was simply the one I was making, namely that EVEN the saudis have condemned this brutal murder without giving ``ifs and buts`` of the kind malik was making on chowk. Nothing more.

tahmed32 # 80 - You wrote ``I dont need anyone`s recognition. I am my own man.``

I did not expect you to say anything different. However, putting these words into practice is where you need to focus. Playing with words and using twisted logic won`t get you out of your shackles.

When you bash ALL muslims for killing an american, but then turn around and promote an illegal war where thousands of innocent people are killed, you are nothing but a cog in the wheel of the right wing war machinery.

Unlike you, I do not have contempt for human life. Unlike you I do not give more importance to one life over another. Unlike you, I believe that a mother of 6 children killed in Iraq at a checkpoint is EQUALLY devastating for her children as the killing of a mother of 6 in WTC.

Urstruly # 77 - You are correct. However, I use the ``15,000`` figure, which is the MOST conservative of all figures, so as not to get into silly arguments with hate mongers on this board about the `number game`. These hate mongers treat even the most conservative figure of 15,000 in a casual manner. Yet, the unfortunate death of one american stops them in their tracks.

This is utter racism. Unfortunately, this racism is coming from ``browns`` for their fellow browns.

malik #78 you write ``My reading of western society tells me that it respects those who contribute new ideas to it, instead of slavishly follow what is given to them. It respects outcasts like Martin Luther King who stand up to injustce and take the beatings. It respects people like Che Guevara who show west their ugly face of colonialism. It respects people like Nelson Mandela who do not cower into delf doubt after being branded a ``terrorist``. They do not start questioning the ``goods`` and bads of aparthied system. They keep their fight. And in the end the same west who called them ``terrorist`` awards them with Noble Peace prize. Then suddenly to be seen with these men becomes a photo-op for western leaders.
You will NEVER earn west`s respect by being a slave, no matter how good a slave you are. ``

This is clear proof of what I had written - your entire existence is defined by seeking respect of the west. And you have the nerve to tell me that I am the slave?

This is what I had written in my earlier post:
``Here is a piece of advice that you may ignore or you may think about: One`s should base one`s opinions on certain basic principles, and not on the opinons of others.``

Do these sound like the words of a slave? You repeated the above and it still didnt sink into your head. I dont care what you or anyone else on chowk or the west or the east or the north or the south thinks of me. I dont need anyone`s recognition. I am my own man. I am free. You are the one who is the slave. As your para. above that I cut and paste proves.

tahmed32 # 75 - You wrote ``You quote from what some ``American`` (what are you? chopped liver?) wrote on NYT to make your case for ``ifs and buts``. Here is a piece of advice that you may ignore or you may think about: One`s should base one`s opinions on certain basic principles, and not on the opinons of others.``


I used the term american to make a point that it was not a european, or a canadian or an arab or a pakistani who made this statement.

As for your advice that I should not base my opinion on the opinion of other people, you will be served well if you act on your own advice. You are on record for arguing that some muslim women in france wear hijab because they have been ``gang raped`` into doing so by other muslims. When I clobbered you on this utter nonsense, you wrote that you based it on an article you had read ``somewhere``.

I can understand your parrotting the same refuted ``intellectual`` slavish arguments over and over again. You think that by doing so you will be accepted in the western society. Let me give you an advice now: My reading of western society tells me that it respects those who contribute new ideas to it, instead of slavishly follow what is given to them. It respects outcasts like Martin Luther King who stand up to injustce and take the beatings. It respects people like Che Guevara who show west their ugly face of colonialism. It respects people like Nelson Mandela who do not cower into delf doubt after being branded a ``terrorist``. They do not start questioning the ``goods`` and bads of aparthied system. They keep their fight. And in the end the same west who called them ``terrorist`` awards them with Noble Peace prize. Then suddenly to be seen with these men becomes a photo-op for western leaders.

You will NEVER earn west`s respect by being a slave, no matter how good a slave you are.

malik 99

Why do you keep quoting 15000 Iraqis as war casualties? According to one American organization, that based their findings only on a survey of Iraqi hospitals conducted about one month after the war was declared over, the Iraqi casualties that were reported to hospitals along with the corpses was about 18000. The number of Iraqi soldiers and civilians who fell martyr to the agression and were reduced to nothingness at front due to cluster bombs, nuclear tipped weapons and vaporized through MOABs fall well into 50-60000. Add to that the thousands that die every month due to continued Crusader`s agression. As a matter of fact Saddam nowhere nearly killed one tenth of this number of Iraqis during the 30 years of his rule that Americans have killed just in a year. Add to that the one million Iraqis who died becuase of crusader sponsored sanctions we come across a human tragedy that is only comparable to the holocaust of jews, half a century ago.

malik #74 You quote from what some ``American`` (what are you? chopped liver?) wrote on NYT to make your case for ``ifs and buts``. Here is a piece of advice that you may ignore or you may think about: One`s should base one`s opinions on certain basic principles, and not on the opinons of others.

Who cares what someone wrote on NYT or somewhere else. Are your views of right or wrong so flimsy that they change depending on whether you think the other person likes you or not?

One condemnation for one death, that too of an American doesnot a liberal Arab regime make. Arab regimes need to stop being being dictatorial, oppressive and intolerant of opposition within their countries.

tahmed32 # 68 - You wrote ``No ifs and buts and ``context`` or other excuses for murder, as malik sahib was making.``

Here is what an american is quoted as saying about Muslims in NY Times of today, May 13th, page A11:

``... Lets kill them all. Let’s wipe them off the face of the earth. This is war, even though a lot of people don’t realize it.``

hmmm...do you see my point? There are no ifs and buts and ``context`` or other excuses in his statement either. Exactly like you. And by the way, he does not seem to be making any exception for people like you either !

CONTEXT is important. We are shocked at the killings of an american. But we are also shocked by the killings of 15,000 Iraqis. We need to see his killing in the CONTEXT of an illegal invasion which has brought death and destruction to thousands of peaceful people all over the world. Even the americans are waking up to it. Yet, the ``holier than pope`` people like you are still clinging to your lies.

tahmed32 # 68 - You wrote ``No ifs and buts and ``context`` or other excuses for murder, as malik sahib was making.``

Here is what an american is quoted as saying about Muslims in NY Times of today, May 13th, page A11:

``... Lets kill them all. Let’s wipe them off the face of the earth. This is war, even though a lot of people don’t realize it.``

hmmm...do you see my point? There are no ifs and buts and ``context`` or other excuses in his statement either. Exactly like you. And by the way, he does not seem to be making any exception for people like you either !

CONTEXT is important. We are shocked at the killings of an american. But we are also shocked by the killings of 15,000 Iraqis. We need to see his killing in the CONTEXT of an illegal invasion which has brought death and destruction to thousands of peaceful people all over the world. Even the americans are waking up to it. Yet, the ``holier than pope`` people like you are still clinging to your lies.

new rules of engagement,

The so called whole world is outraged with the pictures. But what is forgotten is that the world is entering a new war, a war on terror, a war between the soldiers of god, translated literally as lasker e toiba and soldiers of mortals. There is no more an identifable enemy, it is hidden and supported cladestinely by the so called soldiers of nortals. Take the case of pakistan, taliban fighters, the soldiers of god are fighting mere mortals in afghanistan. Pak soldiers are allowing them to settle in pakistan, while a political leader is sent out of the country.

The new war is charectarised by proxy war, it is essentially like all wars, fight between two ideologies, islamic and democracy. The islamic countries are the supporters of this proxy war, it is in their shadows that the laskers flourish. This new war needs new rules of engagement. Iraq war is the first major one of this new war. It needes guantanamo bay, may be some refinements to other containment systems. The pictures are the early indications of this evolution.

This is a new war, it will go on for a long time. A good example is kashmir. The romairs talk about freedom for kashmiris. The amnesty talks about ill treatment in kashmir. But the fact is that there is no organisation that talks of freedom for kashmir. The infiltrators are lasker e toiba, jaish mohammed, hizbul mujahideen, all are soldiers of god. They are essentiallt fighting to create an islamic system in kashmir, like in pakistan complete with hoodood and honour killings. No organisation nake kashmir freedom fighters will get no support from muslims. Kashmir is a frontier of this new war. We need new rules of engagement and new sensibilities.

Even the arab governments themselves are beginnging moving beyond some chowk posters here:

This is what the saudis had to say about this heinous murder of Nick Berg: ``The Al-Zarqawi group is a criminal, deviant and un-Islamic group, allied with bin Laden and the criminals of Al Qaeda who are killing even Muslims and Arabs for no reason. Accordingly, it is not out of character for them to commit acts that violate the teachings of Islam, a noble religion that deplores such acts.``

No ifs and buts and ``context`` or other excuses for murder, as malik sahib was making. This proves that many chowk pakistanis are among the most backward of muslims. They are clueless about the peaceful teachings of Islam, the religion that these terrorists claim to represent.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Diablo: You are wrong in generalizing about muslims. All of us are not the two-faced types you refer to - see my posts below for example. I fully agree that it is hypocritical on the part of many muslims who flock to the west and then bad mouth it for no reason.

I find it fascinating that many Indians who come to chowk come seething with hatred and a need to put down muslims. The handful of irrational muslims who of their kind tend to focus their bile at the west instead and seem to treat hindus as a joke. What the hell is going on here!! ;-)

``It would have been such an apt argument in the medieval times and would have justified so many wars. The Romans whilst invading nations across the known world, use to send home stories of the chivalry and brave acts of their representative armies. The stories established the legionnaires as honourable men who did brave things and brought civilisation to those half human savages. ``

That privilege is reserved for the Caliphs, Qasims, Ghaznis, Taimurs, Abdalis of course(sarcasm). The point being, your description fits all wars, not just those selected by you. It also fits the description of Saddam`s wars, btw.

The US shouldnot have gone to Iraq. The attitude of a number of American civilians and soldiers towards Iraqis as people who can be bullied is sick, as are the photos. For all his empty rhetoric, George Bush after declaring the war over a long time ago, has never addressed the Iraqi people directly(or he has done it only once). He and others obviously consider Iraqis to be people on the other side, enemies who are at war with the US. Hey, if you hadn`t invaded their homeland, they wouldnot need to be at war with you, did the US adminstration think of that?

Given that, I will not judge the US against one standard and Arab regimes against another standard. Why should there be double standards? That sort of hypocrisy needs to end. When this issue of `Muslim` and `Arab` anger is raised, does anyone ask, when Saddam Hussain did much worse for 30 years, where was this `Muslim` and `Arab` rage for 30 years?

What is troubling about these incidents is that they make it harder to get Iraq to a stage where it can govern itself, and GW and co`s cowboy attitudes with respect to the whole enterprise is to blame.

Diablo #62

``Know your enemy...its not America or Israel....your enemy resides deep within your own....it is the religious fanatics who are fundamentally sectarian.``

I kinda agree with what you said and also wanted to point out a couple of things that came to mind when I read this article and particularly the above statement.

First, every nation has self interest in mind. Always. US will ditch Pakistan and every Muslim country if and when the need arises. Its true that we need to eliminate the scourge of sectarian violence among Muslims but it is also true that America and Israel are not exactly our best friends. They (like all countries) act on self-interest. Pakistan ditched Taliban because of self-interest. America ditched Saddam because of self interest. Russia created a bond of friendship with US (post 911) because of self interest and economic prosperity that lay before it.

So, although I do agree with you when you say that the real problem of Muslims and people in Iraq is sectarian violence, we should not forget that US, Israel or any country for that matter is not a `friend` nor `enemy.` It is just a player in this game of global money making where every alliance can be made or broken in order to milk it for all its worth!!

sattar2: Pretty good analysis. I agree with pretty much everything you have to say. I think Limbaugh, as usual, was saying what his audience of 20 million wants to say, but is politically correctly afraid of saying.

One point you did miss, in my opinion. The overwhelming Iraqi public opinion was against this invasion. This is why it did not work. One cannot just go into a country, as a, ``saviour`` if the people of that country consider you an occupier.

I watch talk shows on this issue all the time on Canadian TV. Unlike US TV, Canadian TV shows people with all kinds of views - like Noam Chomsky, and many Arabs. Invariably, on every talk show, all the Arabs/Muslims/Iraqis guests oppose the war. All the Arab/Muslim/Iraqi callers into the shows oppose the war. And all the Arab/Muslim/Iraqis in the audience oppose the war. It is almost 100%. The only excepiton is the odd Kurd, and even they say they do not trust the USA.

Who are the guests who support the war? Invariably, they are right-wing White Christian or Jewish guys from USA or Canada (though on the whole most Christians in Canada even oppose the war). Nearly every single Jewish guest supports it and keeps arguing how it is beneficial for the Iraqis. They seem more concerned about Iraq than the Iraqis themselves. While, ironically, the Iraqi guest sitting across him, and in the audience, are literally yelling at the top of their lungs trying to tell them, that they hate the USA and want it out of their country.

The only newspaper openly in support of this war in Ontario is the National Post. And it is owned by a very famous and extremely pro-Israeli Jewish family in Canada.

Opinion polls taken by CNN, before Fallujah and these pictures, showed that only 19% the Iraqis considered this a liberation. Now the number is bound to be a lot less. And opinion polls taken by Newsweek indicated that out of the 190 or so countries in teh world, only the majority populations of Israel and USA supported this war. And according to the Economist, Israel and USA are the most disliked countries in the world, amongst Arabs.

So when the second most disliked country in the world of 190 countries, amongst Arabs, invades Iraq, when it had at one time supported Saddam, it is bound to face resistance. Even if Iraq was ruled by Saddam, earlier........Americans have a huge image problem, in the Middle East. And if they are bent upon not fixing it, then they should refrain from invading other countries....

I don`t think OBL could have scripted this whole affair any better. He now has a new country to operate from, and a whole new population, pissed off at the USA, to recruit from.......

And I think the rest of the world, specifically the Muslim world, owes the Iraqi population quite a bit of gratitude for stopping the neo-con potential jaggeernaut right in its tracks......

This is typical of a large segment of Muslims living in North America. They live in the same countries they ideologically hate the lands that allowed them freedoms in life and defend the atrocities committed in their native lands.

Syed Ali, who has killed more Iraqis? Israel, USA or Saddam and now the Wahabi/Salafi dogs?

Know your enemy...its not America or Israel....your enemy resides deep within your own....it is the religious fanatics who are fundamentally sectarian. What is your point of view on the suicide bombings committed by Wahabi/Salafi dogs under the command of Zarqawi? (The bombings inside the Holy Shrines of Kerbala, Najaf and Kadhmiya were NOT carried out by the Israelis and America and therefore were not worthy of condemnation by the ``Ummah``)

Leave Iraq alone!

This is not the land of Jihad or the land of those who wish to pick a fight against America.......you didn`t help when we bled against Saddam (350,000 Shia died fighting Saddam in 1991....where was the Ummah? you only cry for Sunnies and that is why ALL of you mourn 6,000 Palestinians killed in the intifada. When the Shia die you turn a blind eye!)

.....you didn`t care when we starved....you only cared about Palestine and Kashmir.....you are a reactionary mind and respond only when it is somehow America`s fault.


Get real for once and see things for what they are. If we wish to progress as a people then we need to fight the bigger enemy......Al-Qaida, Zarqawi, the sectarian pigs from Jhang (and their ``Lashkars``)......they will kill us all before the Americans even get a chance.....

DEATH TO AL-QAIDA AND THE PIGS OF NEJD!

I think there are two ways to view the Abu-Ghraib fiasco … (sorry, longish post).

Limbaugh Viewpoint
One is that of Rush Limbaugh … which in some ways has some truth. That is … in a historical perspective, Abu-Ghraib POW abuse amounts to pretty much nothing … when compared to treatment of POWs from other wars throughout human history. A few men were violated during a war. Big deal … get over it.

Alternate viewpoint
What makes it tough to swallow Limbaugh line of reasoning (for me, at least) are the claims of fairness and justice made by the US administration all along. It seems reasonable to uphold the US army to higher standards of conduct. What makes it worse is the news about senior US officials having prior knowledge of these abuses … and their reluctance in dealing with the matter.

Comparisons to Japan and Germany
Now, I have heard Iraq being compared to Japan and Germany on several occasions … in the context of US bringing about democratic changes in other countries. My understanding is that … this comparison is flawed … for several reasons.

In the case of Japan and Germany, there was clear aggression against the world by these two nations. There was consensus in the world about who needs to be punished, and why. Furthermore, very importantly, Japan and Germany were entities with well-defined boundaries. On the other hand … aggression by Iraq/Saddam does not come close to what Japan and Germany were up to … before some sense was kicked into them by the US and Allies. Furthermore, “Militant Islam” is not a single country that may be easily invaded and defeated. It has a diffused existence … in pockets here and there … spreading from Turkey to Phillipines … and then some.

Such an enemy cannot be fought by a straight-forward invasion. Democratizing the Muslim world cannot be achieved by invading one country after the other. The small gains made by these wars are far outweighed by the loss of goodwill, death and destruction, and damage to human psyche and property. International support and alliances are needed to deal with this issue in a fitting manner. It was present after WW2 … but was clearly absent in the Iraq war.

And things only get more twisted …

African issue: It is difficult to accept the high moral position of the US in this conflict … when during the past 10 years alone, a lot worse has happened in African nations … with millions getting killed in civil wars … without much help from the US. Yes, Saddam is an animal … but there are worse dictators who did not get invaded by Uncle Sam. Although, this point alone does not constitute an argument against invasion of Iraq … it makes one understandably skeptical of the high moral ground US has tried to claim … while raising suspicion about its motives.

WMD issue: Whatever international goodwill and credibility US had, got lost in the WMD claims … when no WMDs turned up. This remains a severe blow for the US … which will be used against it by the enemy it is trying to fight.

Israel issue: Like it or not, US support for Israel is one of the root causes of Muslim world discontent with the US. I do think that Palestinians have been wronged … by the US, Israel, and the UNO … and ironically … more so by other Muslim nations. Since it is easy to blame others … most (all?) of the blame is shifted to the US, Israel by the Islamic world. A fair Israel policy is the pre-requisite to win Arab support. This will remain a thorn in the US’s side for time to come … and will make it impossible to have a peaceful resolution to the current crisis (pardon my pessimism, I hope I am wrong).

Islamic Militancy: Last, but not least, Islamic fundamentalism is a growing cancer in the world. Violent tendencies seem to have seeped into the very heart of the Islamic leadership and scholarship … and has continued to drive the ummah closer to the edge. The Osama problem is not confined to one person … but to individuals and organizations scattered all over the world … bound by a misguided ideology … brutally seeking political power.

Being a man of somewhat religious disposition, I am reminded of a saying of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) … that a day will come, when scholars in his ummah will be the lowest of Allah’s creations. I think we are witnessing those very times.

Finally: So, in end analysis … I see this as a conflict between two parties … both of whom are on the wrong side of the issue. Who is more wrong … is somewhat of a relative issue. As usual, the innocents suffer … in Palestine, in WTC, in Kabul, Bali, Basra, Karachi … and so on. My fear all along has been that … this war will strengthen fundamentalism … which in turn will lead to more terrorism. From what I gather, the forgotten nation governed from Kabul is now no closer to democracy than before … and the looming US election may very sell send Iraq down the same road. This will surely escalate the existing global turmoil.

There you have it … I have blamed each and every group here … and even sounded like Limbaugh at times. It’s now time for chowk-hawks to have a go at it …

Following is information about the new photos that have been shown to the US Senate. They are supposed to be worse than what has been seen, so far. The USA govt. is trying hard to make sure they are not released to the public. I am not sure whether it will be successful:

``The pictures show further abuse of Iraqi prisoners, including forced homosexual sex, military dogs snarling at prisoners and Iraqi women commanded to expose their breasts.

Some senators said there were images of hooded Iraqi prisoners being forced to masturbate.

Some pictures also appear to depict consensual sex involving U.S. military personnel.`` (www.msn.ca)

The USA govt. sent a Canadian citizen, Mehr Ahrar, for torture to Syria. So there is a precedence for all of this. I am surprised, people are so surprised to find out that the USA policy is based on such acts, in other countries. Many of us have been pointing them out for a while now, in our debates with individuals like tahmad and hamidm, and others......

P.S. Interestingly, Mrs. Mehr Ahrar, a hijab-wearing, thirty-something, Ph.D in economics from McGill university, has become somewhat of a hero in Canada. One of the Canda`s three main political parties, the NDP, has given her a ticket of Canada`s equivalent of the National Assembly. It would be interesting if she won.......

hassansiddiqi #53: ``I guess it all comes down to ``might is right.`` What ever happens later is just showbusiness. Politicians showing ``outrage`` when all they want is a seat in the White House. Sad but true.``

Yes. I agree.

Two-thirds of USA still supports Rumsfeld. So he will stay. Firing him could be political suicide, for a President who is relying on the Rush Limbaugh audience for his core support. If two-thirds started opposing Rumsfeld, he would be fired, much like Trent Lott was. It has nothing to do with morality. He just came on the news today, stating that he saw nothing wrong with US interrogation policies in Iraq. Once again, because this is what the opinion polls were indicating. Just two days ago, he had stated exactly the opposite.

``Might is right,`` is the rule. And this is what has been proven in Iraq. Americans have been defeated, and are leaving. In fact, they are struggling to find an exit strategy. Unfortunately, they were not defeated because they became moral all of a sudden, on this issue. They are leaving, because the lost militarily to the gurreillas and militants.

Iraqis have done a huge favor to the rest of the world. They have knocked out the neo-cons. And they have given a voice to the so-far impotent Democrats. Instead of putting Iran on the axis of evil, the USA is now asking Irani clerics to help them in Iran. And instead of demonizing the UN, the USA is begging it to get it out of the mess. And instead of showing pictures of Saddam Hussain`s torture, the USA is running around trying to ensure, its own pictures of torture do not come out.

In the end of this war, obviously, the biggest losers will be Iraqis, since they have faced the most destruction. However, the USA has lost out also. It has lost its, ``aura of invincibility`` in a unipolar world. No one will take, ``axis of evil`` statements seriously any longer......Before Iraq, people did take them seriously.

Interestingly, one would think that Arabs hate the USA more than anyone. But South Americans hate the USA, a lot also. Talk to someone from Chile, and he may be a bigger fan of OBL, than many Arabs.....

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

concerned #151

but never chinese treatment of tibetans. the chinese are off-limits for human rights champions like romair.

HA HA HA HA!

No, each Chinese is a new Mohammad, blameless no matter what he does :)

HP #48,

You are fighting a losing battle, as far as this board is concerned. There are simply
too many razor-sharp minds for you to go against - all beacons of piety and human
rights worldwide. Asking them to peek at their own backyard is a tad unfashionable.

It is truly staggering - the pomposity on display here.

arright you brownies start a campaign to clean up abuses in tihar and attock jails etc. at least take some pictures.

It seems like the these days the only way people resort to raising an objection to atrocities commited is by commiting a similar if not worse one. Cutting off the head of an American apparently brings peace to the heart of some people...but simply makes me sick. There is no justification for what either side is doing...Although what amazes and hurts me is the victims are innocent people, being taught a lesson for jsut existing.

Romair #46

I totally agree with you. I guess it all comes down to ``might is right.`` What ever happens later is just showbusiness. Politicians showing ``outrage`` when all they want is a seat in the White House. Sad but true.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

romair #50,

[...But do keep in mind that many of us have been writing against any kind of human rights abuse, regardless of nation, religion or ethnicity. From Turkish treatment of Kurds, Pakistani treatment of Bengalis, Indian treatment of Kashmiris, OBL`s treatement of Americans, Israeli treatment of Palestinians, American treatment of Iraqis etc...]

but never chinese treatment of tibetans. the chinese are off-limits for human rights champions like romair.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

dost-mittar #44: ``Yes, but I would include in it the silence towards human rights abuses by despotic regimes in the middle east or issues where certain countries confiscate bible before you enter their country?``

Very true.

But do keep in mind that many of us have been writing against any kind of human rights abuse, regardless of nation, religion or ethnicity. From Turkish treatment of Kurds, Pakistani treatment of Bengalis, Indian treatment of Kashmiris, OBL`s treatement of Americans, Israeli treatment of Palestinians, American treatment of Iraqis etc.

The easiest indication to find out where massive crimes are being committed is to find out where human rights organizations are banned. There is always a direct link. The Int. Red Cross has recently stated that 70-90% of the inmates in the prison in Iraq are innocent. No wonder the Americans want to keep them out of the prisons.....

This is also why I think one`s loyalty should always be to human rights, and never to religionism, secularism, ethnicism, or even to undemocratic ``democracies.``

romair # 36 - Your post is so well written, so clear, and so sensible that nothing more is needed to add to it.

Indeed, as Saddam learned, as Aristide learned, as Noriega of Panama learned, that being a whore of West does not give you any life long guarantees, the Uncle Tom`s and `Brown sahibs` in West will learn that lesson too.

Intriguing as it may sound, Ahmad Chalabi seems to be on track to learn this lesson soon.

malik #43 I in fact wrote a whole article on chowk before the Iraq war, supporting it. And the reasons were as follows:

a. at a minimum, Iraq would be rid of a murderous half-brained dictator who had led it from one war to another, killed thousands of minorities, killed even his own sons-in-law.
Result: Done.

b. The US has made historic contributions to the spread of democracy around the world - the French Revolution was inspired by it. US occupation of Germany and Japan introduced democracy in those two countries (the brief Weimer regime of the 1920`s was too brief and shaky and soon overridden by Nazis and so represented at best a false start in democracy in Germany). The Chinese Democracy movement was directly inspired by the US: the demonstrators even made a large replica of the statue of liberty. And the US sees its future not in territorial expansion, but in things most pakistanis never think about - space exploration, scientific advancements, medical breakthrouhs, nanotechnologies, even traversing dimensions (with a 3-4 billion dollar project for a huge particle accelerator being proposed nowadays) and so on. OF COURSE, the influence of such a dynamic country that has been at the forefront of human bondage to kings has every reason to be a positive influence on Iraq.
Result: Too early to tell. If a far-sighted statesman like Adenauer emerges in Iraq (as happened in Germany after WWII), Iraq will fully benefit in the years ahead from US involvement. If instead a bunch of greedy, short-sighted individuals come up, Iraq will not fully benefit. But it will still be better off I bet than under Hussein.

Did someone blow it in Abu Ghraib? of course. But the US will recover from it, unlike Pakistan from 1971 (per my post to inquirer).

I have made my views clear, and you can accept them or reject them. However, I am not getting into any arguments on this.

#18 by malik99

“HP # 14 - You wrote ``No Islamic leader or country has so far come forward to apologize to the people of the US.``

This statement is too retarded and obscene to merit a response.”

I agree with you truth is always retarded and obscene. That is the beauty of the truth. It is also bitter.
I tried but I could not find any info or a link or some thing to live by that would show Muslims leaders apologizing for 911. Again condemnation is not an apology.
Blowing hot air 24 hours a day and blaming the US ALONE would not move people forward towards the resolution of this issue. Every body needs to be responsible to clear out this mess and that includes the US too.

#35 by Romair

“Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran Malaysia, Bangladesh etc. did not order the attacks on WTC, nor did their govt. support them.”

Nice try! So you preempt me. Still, these are the principle Muslims country. Yes! on technicalities they have no compulsion to apologize. But this issue has moved beyond technicalities now. Moral high ground is not a mere detail. This whole saga is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

“And what exactly does an apology mean? All these apologies are carried out for political purposes. If the opinion polls indicate that Bush has more chance of getting elected, if he fires Rumsfeld, he will fire him. If they don`t he will keep hiim in place.”

Apology means a whole lot to lots of people. The catholic church also could have hidden behind “We did not do it” our predecessors did it some centuries ago. All the people that perpetrated atrocities and the people who were humiliated in the name of the church died some centuries ago. But the church still apologized. I am not a scholar of Islam but the prophet on several occasions talked about apology more than the revenge. An apology shows remorse and it is an attempt to connect with the victim on a human level. On personal level what would you rather do, apologize or kill somebody if you have somehow annoyed somebody? Now I don’t have to go in the moral values of the saying sorry. You are a grown up man & know this way more than I do.

You are saying that Bush and the US senate apologized because of polls, but if they did because of polls alone, does it not show the high moral standards American people hold their govt and representatives to force an apology- a reluctant apology in your opinion- but still on the insistence of Americans.

Why Muslims all over the world would not agree to apologize. The principal Muslim countries may not have any role in 911. But most of the hijackers were from some Arab countries and why is it so hard for the King of Saudi Arabia, President of Syria or Egypt to say sorry on behalf of their misguided or extremists citizens? Nobody would blame them for the 911, if they apologize for some of their citizens.

I have been visiting different discussion boards in the US. Left, liberals, rightwing, republicans and rightwing extremists and on ALL boards, a majority of Americans is showing remorse on what happened at abu ghraib.

It is just not a matter of some legal mumbo-jumbo. it is a matter of simple decency. Of values that we hold dear and one value is to feel and show that you are sorry even if the act was perpetrated by a misguided member of your family.

hassansiddiqi #42: The reaction to such atrocities cannot be judged by how many people do not support them. It is nearly impossible for anyone to support such atrocities (though Rush Limbaugh does have a gigantic following, so may be I am speaking too early). One would have to be inhuman to support such atrocities. Specially against individuals who have done nothing to you. The Iraqis in the prison have done nothing to the USA. They are not a part of Al-Qaeda. In fact, the USA has now let go so many of them, indicating they shouldn`t have been in jail to begin with. According to the Human Rights organizations, an overwhelming amount of the prisoners, are innocent.

The reaction to such atrocities has to be judged by how much opposition there is to them, and to the occupation as a whole (without which there would be no such cases). Presidents, in countries like USA, make their decisions on public opinion polls. Their aim is to get re-elected. Bush has not fired a single individual, for anything related to Iraq. Had he felt public opinion was strong against such atrocities, he would dropped Rumsfeld, and anyone else, in a heartbeat. They are all expendable, for a Republican re-election. The fact that Bush has called him a great Defence Secretary - the best ever (through Cheney, who himself was one) indicates that he has judged the mood of the public opinion polls, i.e. Americans would rather have not had the atrocities occur, but ho-hum- doesn`t mean much should change.

Compare this to the reaction against Senate Majority leader Trent Lott, and his comments in support of Storm Thurmond. Senate Majority leader is much more influential and powerful position, than an unelected Defence Secretary. It is the third most powerful position in the country. Lott made a casual comment about Thurmond`s historical policies, related to Blacks, and lost his job. Why? Because he had become a political weight around Bush after the comment. That comment was chickenfeed in comparison to what has happened on Rumsfeld`s watch, in Iraq. Imagine if attack dogs were being let lose against Black and Jewish inmates in US military prisons, inside the USA. And if they were stripped naked and piled into a pyramid. Do you think Rumsfeld and others would have been out the door? Of course. In a heartbeat. Because the US public would not accept a simple apology, with no action. The ACLU and AIPAC would drag down the whole Bush govt. if it did not fire someone.

All these apologies are thus based on what the public wants. If Bush fires Rumsfeld, it is quite possible, his voters (Rush included) may actually turn against him. Bush recently authroized Sharon`s atrocious plans in Israel. Why? Not due to any moral reason. But because he wants to increase the Jewish vote for Republicans from 1/3rd to at least 1/2. He is suggesting furthur sanctions against Cuba, for democracy. What happened all of a sudden? A moral enlightenement on part of Bush. No. He knows that Florida is going to be a deciding state in the election. And he wants to get the Cuban-American vote there, which is very anti-Castro.

So one should not read into apologies too much. Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld had the report, about the atrocities, sitting on their desks in January. Had they really been concerned, they would have apologized then. Rumsfeld excuse was that he could not visualize the graphics through text. Yeah, sure.

Similarly, the Democrats are, ``drilling`` Rumsfeld, because they want to get re-elected. It is in their interest to make the Republicans look bad in Iraq. But do keep in mind, that nearly every Democrat, including Kerry and Edwards, voted (yes voted) in favor of the invasion. They only turned against it, when it made political sense to do so, after the Iraqis started kicking the US out. It was not a moral decision. It was a political one.

If the American opinion was to feel good, and not to feel sorry, even after seeing these pictures, then I am afraid they Americans would have ceased to be human. I am not sure anyone deserves credit for simply that........Do keep in mind that the Iraqis in all these pictures, and as a nation combined, have never killed a single American, and have never lauched a single bullet in the USA. Yet over the past twenty-five years, the USA has supported Saddam as he killed them. Attacked and completely destroyed their country during the first Gulf War. Sanctioned them, thereby killing upto 1 million of them, and has now occupied them, and humiliated them........All with the support of its public....

Saying a few words of apology, and that too after the scandal got out of political control, is like OBL apologzing to New Yorkers for breaking a window, after having attacked the WTC..........

tainted #41 you write `` In the same way that there can be no justification for whatever happened in 1971, there can be none for the US Armed Forces now. ``

There is a difference between bangladesh 1971 and Iraq 2003:

1. Not one man has yet been charged in Pakistan to this day, 32 years later. In the US, the first trial starts next week.

And this will be an open trial with the press present. in iraq. and before anyone rushes to call it a show trial - 3 others have already been charged. and this is just the start. the entire nation - including arch conservative columnists like George Will and Robert Novak - is calling for Rumsfelds resignation. There is a national outrage of a kind that never took place in Pakistan after 1971.

2. In pakistan, the Hamoodurrehman report - which chronicled alleged crimes - has yet to be made public, 32 years later. In the US, its equivalent - the Gen. Taguba report was made public, and Gen Taguba himself openly questioned in the Congress before cnn cameras.


you also write ``But did you or your father ever call for accountability publicly?``

I in fact raised this point, and provided answered clearly in my post. I have no need to prove anything on chowk.

``Human beings when pushed to commit atrocities become degenerate and loose their humanity.``

Very true! And it is true not only of the US army in Iraq but equally true of any forces where soldiers find it hard to tell an enemy from a friend.

``Ours is the crime of silence and apathy, towards issues that require our voices.``

Yes, but I would include in it the silence towards human rights abuses by despotic regimes in the middle east or issues where certain countries confiscate bible before you enter their country?

Wajahat,

Let me categorically state this - I am against this occupation. I don`t think it was done for the right reasons. However, I am happy to see Saddam leave. The Bush government should not have occupied Iraq in the first place and now they are in deep trouble.

Second, the purpose of my previous message was not to support the US administration for what it is doing in Iraq. It was to say that the Iraq atrocities are NOT being supported by the people and the politicians.

Sure the Secretary of Defense wanted to cover it up. Sure the Secretary of Defense didnot want the media to show those pictures. However, an independent media and a democratic system of government ensured that those who did wrong were brought to justice. The Bush administration stands guilty of these atrocities.

So my support is not towards the government that occupied Iraq, my emphasis is on the fact that Syed Ali should not generalize the notion that American people and American politicians in general support these atrocities. The fact that Rumsfeld was grilled in the Senate hearings and made to fess up every thing that happened, is proof that politicians and the media are independent and do not reflect the notion that they support these atrocities.

Remember: I donot support the occupation. I support democracy and independence which is reflected by the confessions and outrage of the public, the media and the politicians over the atrocities in Iraq.

tahmed32 - I had asked you in my previous board when you are going to Iraq now that the war you so propagated has gone wrong and your country needs you. Your response, predictably from ball-less war mongers like you consisted of hyperboles, intellectual droppings, and blabbering non-sense.

So let me state for this board here:

TAHMED32 is nothing more than a mass of hot air. All these months we have seen him typing away his blabber talk on various boards propagating `liberation` of Iraq. Now he is not willing to be a stockholder in the devastating consequences of the aftermath of war.

NOW is the time for action on his part. NOW is the time for him to WALK the walk. But our esteemed tahmed32 is quietly sneaking out :)

Is ``credibility`` a trait men die to have? Apparently not !

malik: I had asked you a simple, one line question (whether the beheading was justified) and you failed to respond in an honest manner (to put it bluntly, given that you ignored the point when I put it less bluntly before). That is: you said the answer was NO, and then proceeded to negate what you said by trying to provide an ``explanation``.

I will be glad to discuss anything with anyone on chowk (within time constraints). But only if the discussion is honest and rational. When you are able to do that, then we can talk. Till then, you can rant as much as you like - I am not going to waste time trying to have a reasonable discussion.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

But did you or your father ever call for accountability publicly? We can protest against anything and everything and take stands in private conversations at private gatherings, but to say it out loud? Ha. Comparing the East Pakistan debacle with the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan is a sad way of supporting your argument. In the same way that there can be no justification for whatever happened in 1971, there can be none for the US Armed Forces now.

``And that is all I am saying - we need as a first step to judge ourselves by certain moral standards, and not simply point fingers at others or set up a smoke screen of generalities and rhetoric``

- but does that mean that we turn a blind eye to whatever happens in the rest of the world?

I think there are certain questions that need to be asked about the prisoner abuse in Iraq, that are not being asked:

Amongst the forefront of this has to be, whether the US society has been so brainwashed about Arabs, as an ethnicity, and perhaps Muslims as faith, that they have developed racist tendencies. To check racism, one has to concentrate on how the lower echelons of the society are treated. An Arab who sits as a CEO of an organization, may not face racism, but does an Arab who sits at the bottom, face it?

For starters, we need to ask whether the reaction of the US govt. been different had the prisoners been Jewish. If US soldiers were letting attack dogs lose on Jewish prisoners and dragging them on a leash, would Rumsfeld have resigned, and would Bush have plummeted in the polls? Would there have been practical actions, or a mere apology? Would the action have been taken, when the report arrived on Rumsfeld`s desk, or only after, the pictures were leaked, and there was no other option left? Would Bush have distanced himself from Rumsfeld or brought him even closer? And most of all, would poeple like Rush Limbaugh have been able to portray the mindset of 20 million people in his comments? Or would they have lost their audience, or been fired? He was, after all, fired from ESPN on making a simple remark stating that a quarterback was being ranked too high by the press becasuse he was Black.

Would Rush still have a following of 20 million, if we add the term, ``Jewish`` to his comments:

``All right, so we`re at war with these people. And they`re in a prison where they`re being softened up for interrogation. And we hear that the most humiliating thing you can do is make one JEWISH male disrobe in front of another. Sounds to me like it`s pretty thoughtful. Sounds to me in the context of war this is pretty good intimidation -- and especially if you put a woman in front of them and then spread those pictures around the JEWISH world. And we`re sitting here, `Oh my God, JEWS`re gonna hate us! Oh no! What are JEWS gonna think of us?` I think maybe the other perspective needs to be at least considered. Maybe JEWS`re gonna think we are serious. Maybe JEWS`re gonna think we mean it this time. Maybe JEWS`re gonna think we`re not gonna kowtow to JEWS. Maybe the people who ordered this are pretty smart. Maybe the people who executed this pulled off a brilliant maneuver.``

Obviously, Limbaugh, nor anyone else, couldn`t dare make such statement about Jews. And Rumsfeld would have been out the door, along with his whole hierarachy, had Jews been dragged around on a lease. Or Blacks, or Catholics, or Europeans. And Bush`s ratings would have plummeted. Not remained exactly where they were before the photos came out.

There is an eerie amount of racism against Arabs and Muslims that has crept into the American psyche. One could understand if it was just against Al-Qeada. But it is against a whole religion and ethnicity. That is why they are so quick to support any attack on Arabs, without asking for much justification. And are least bothered by any justification, even now. Luckily, this is limited to Americans, and other goras like Canadians, Germans etc. are not participating in it. On the contrary, they are starting to dislike the Americans for it.

Any Arab or Muslim (or anyone who looks like them, like Hindus) in the USA who supports this war is actually shooting him/herself in the foot. In may pay to be holier than the pope, in the short term. But in the long run, when the govt. come for such Uncle Toms, no one will be there to speak for them, if they don`t speak up for others, right now. They would be well-advised to not encourage such US adventures, for their own sakes, even if they are not concerned about the human rights of Iraqis.

Because if another attack occurs in the USA (which it inevitably will, according to the FBI), then the Americans are not going to differentiate between individuals like hamidm (who feels sorry for Rumsfeld), ZahraJ (who wants American soldiers in Pakistan, to fix Pakistan), tahamad (who is still trying to find ways to justify eve